Speaking at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland,
AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson confirmed that the telecom and internet giant is “very
interested” in a “technology based solution” to monitor data
passing through its networks for rogue peer-to-peer traffic.

“It’s like being in a store and watching someone steal a
DVD,” said Stephenson. “Do you act?”

Such a move would affect more than just AT&T’s
subscribers, as the company’s network investments represent a sizable chunk of the
internet’s backbone – which results in almost all Internet data passing through its network at some point. Given
that AT&T has, so far, been pensive about the scope of such a project, many
are assuming the worst.

More importantly, AT&T may forfeit its end of the deal
in what Slate’s Tim Wu calls “the
grand bargain of common carriage:” legal immunity from whatever claims might arise
from data its network transports, in exchange for offering network service to
anyone in a nondiscriminatory fashion. “AT&T's new strategy reverses that
position and exposes it to so much potential liability that adopting it would
arguably violate AT&T's fiduciary duty to its shareholders,” writes Wu.

In an absence of any official word on why AT&T wants to
implement such a project, many people think that the primary motivator is an
alarmed response to the growing percentage of traffic attributable to P2P
activity; various surveys claim that anywhere from 30 to 90
percent of all internet traffic is P2P related. Lately, ISPs both large and
small have been testing the waters with a variety of traffic-shaping
initiatives, including Comcast, which last year found
itself in the middle of a scandal over how
it handles BitTorrent traffic.

According to AT&T – as well as anecdotal reports and
commentary from other ISP employees – Internet users should expect a more
managed Internet experience in the near future, as technology is finally
becoming sophisticated enough to allow for such large-scale projects.

“We
recognize we are not there yet but there are a lot of promising technologies,”
said AT&T executive James Cicconi, “but we are having an open discussion
with a number of content companies … to try to explore various technologies
that are out there.”

“The volume of peer-to-peer traffic online, dominated by
copyrighted materials, is overwhelming. That clearly should not be an
acceptable, continuing status,” said NBC Universal’s general counsel, Rick
Cotton. “The question is how we collectively collaborate to address this.”

Comments

Threshold

Username

Password

remember me

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

but at the same time, that's like saying the people who build a new shopping mall can't monitor activity inside it to make sure gangs aren't using it for drug deals.

this is a tough case. personally, i think they should simply include a clause that says that since you're paying them to use THEIR private network, they reserve the right to make sure they aren't assisting in/providing the means for illegal activity among their users.

"but at the same time, that's like saying the people who build a new shopping mall can't monitor activity inside it to make sure gangs aren't using it for drug deals."

I would assume that is the job of the local police, not the malls builder,owner, or manager. Also, its different if you are in a mall and see drug deals going down and report it to the police, and monitoring internet traffic. To happen see a crime and report it is fine, to monitor communications looking for crime is illegal (at least until good ol' George Dubbya).

> "I would assume that is the job of the local police, not the malls builder,owner, or manager"

Point in fact, it's also the duty of the mall owner, up to a certain degree. Many hotels, for instance, have been shut down for not taking reasonable steps to prevent prostitution within them.

I am not arguing against your point but merely curious. Were employees of the hotels charged with a criminal offense or was it a case where an owner/manager of a 15 room hourly rental motel who went to jail and thereby shut down? Loss of license from criminal charge maybe? I am no attorney but can a noncorporeal incorporated entity like a Four Seasons be shut down via a criminal charge generally speaking? Revocation of license or bankruptcy via some form of civil recourse in tort law perhaps?

> " to monitor communications looking for crime is illegal"

To monitor on a common carrier is illegal. The public phone network is such. The Internet, though, is a grey area; there's not a firm body of legal precedent either way.

Personally, I hope the same protections will be accorded to Internet traffic...but as of yet, they don't exist.

Can someone explain the courts on this one? What is the difference between my voice traveling getting certain protection (pre Bush NSA Narus STA 6400 hypothetical) and my data packets getting no protection? Just for simplicity, say I only use copper twisted pair on my end and the same for the other guy on the line receiving either voice or data via oldschool HyperTerminal from me.

Sorry, but it's not really a 'private network' considering that most of the internet has been paid for by our taxes.

Now, if that wasn't the case, then I would agree with you - it's a private network if NO public funds are spent on it, otherwise it is a public/private network with the same protections on it as the phone lines (which were also paid for mostly by taxes).

> "Were employees of the hotels charged with a criminal offense or was it a case where an owner/manager of a 15 room hourly rental motel who went to jail and thereby shut down"

The "bawdy house" cases I know of have included revocation of operating licenses and in extreme cases seizure of assets (the property itself). I'm not personally familiar with any where criminal charges were filed against the owner/manager, but I'm sure some exist. Quite obviously, the standard of proof is higher in a criminal case.